|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re-Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Hi Jaderli, Jaderis
ICANT writes: Jaderis writes: The reason why they worded the paragraph you quoted the way they did was to tie biological evolution in to the theme of global change. I would tend to think it was because they had just studied the Big Bang, and solar system, just a little earlier in the semester. They were then being reminded that evolution had many forms. You can see the class scheduleHere No, ICANT, it was because they were reminding the students that "evolution is a unifying theme of this course and the concept of evolution is relevant to many of our topics." The fact that they went on to state that "the word 'evolution' does not apply only to biological evolution" does not support your case as no one here has asserted that the word "evolution" only applies to biological evolution in all cases. Just in the case of speaking about biological evolution, like on this debate forum where "evolution" can be correctly assumed to mean biological evolution unless otherwise specified. The class was part of a program on global change and lecturing about how things (biological and otherwise) evolve helps students understand the complexities involved in dynamic systems.
ICANT writes: Jaderis writes: Was this supposed to prove something? Only that higher education teaches other theories of evolution than biological. Then you are wrong. Can you please show where in this UMich program they used the phrase "theory of evolution" to mean anything other than the "Theory of Evolution" as it is used by biologists? Or any other "higher education" institution? Or anywhere? You might find someone saying something like "there are many theories about the evolution of the Basque language" or "the generally accepted theory on the evolution of our solar system is..." but you will hard pressed to find anyone using the phrase "theory of evolution" to mean anything other than the "Theory of Evolution" as it pertains to biology.
Or are you saying that they are not telling the truth? I didn't say anything of the sort. You are the one who went grasping at straws and tried to bend the words to mean something that they didn't mean. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I didn't write the book, I didn't interpet the book, I did read where: Darwin put down a lot of information. From that information he drew his conclusions which included that God had breathed life into one or more forms. As far as Darwin was concerned the beginning of life was a part of his Theory of Evolution. Again, that was an opinion offered by Darwin. He provided no evidence for how the first lifeforms came to exist and therefore his opinion is not a part of the ToE or any other scientific theory, as of yet. And for the millionth time, how the first life forms came to be has absolutely NO bearing on the subsequent evolution of their descendants.
I can understand why an evolutionist would not want to have to deal with the origin of life as part of the Theory of Biological Evolution since it is not known. Science is not uncomfortable with that which is not known. That's religion's department. We "evolutionists" accept that there are currently many unknowns, but that as time goes by and our understanding and technology develop those unknowns will become less and less. We don't just make stuff up to fill in the gaps in our knowledge in order to make ourselves feel better. Again, that is religion's department. One of these unknowns is how the first biological life came into existence, but we are excited to find out. No matter what we discover, it will still have absolutely NO bearing on the evolution of life since then. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you saying Darwin was a creationist? Obviously I am not. This is why there was nothing whatsoever in my post which any person both sane and honest could possibly interpret as saying that Darwin was a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The University of Michigan teaches other kinds of evolution. And does not claim that they are explained by the theory of evolution, no matter how much you lie and twist and obfuscate.
Darwin's book included his conclusions for the origin of life. No.
The people here holding that Theory of Evolution = Biological Evolution will never accept anything else. They are as bad about something like that as the YEC's are about some of their belief's. The people here holding that "apricot" doesn't mean "small tree-dwelling marsupial" will never accept anything else. They are as bad about something like that as the YEC's are about some of their belief's. Apart from not being drivelling, cretinously wrong, of course.
I am satisfied and from now on when someone says ToE I will ask which particular type of evolution they are referring to. Good. And if they get it wrong, will you please tell them? There is enough confusion in the world. --- I don't see why it's important to creationists to be wrong about everything. My best guess is that they have observed that every time they put up an argument for creationism, people with scientific knowledge tell them that they're being bloody stupid --- and have concluded from this that anything that gets derided for being bloody stupid must therefore be an argument for creationism. But it is possible for a statement about science, even about biology, even about evolution, to be moronically, droolingly stupid without being an argument for creationism. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
This is not a controversy between evolution and creationism. If evolution is defined as “change over time” I haven’t heard many people dispute that. The “theories of evolution” concern the mechanisms by which change came about, and they can be divided into two categories, materialist theories and theories that include mechanisms of purposeful intent.
I think the following is an accurate statement of the materialist position:
quote: Non-materialistic theories all contain some form of intelligent purposeful organization. My own view is that the ability to make intelligent, purposeful responses is an observable trait of all living systems. Even single cells are capable of some limited creative response to environmental stimuli. Such responses are heritable, epigenetically, as traits develop, and only become encoded into the genome if persistent over generations. If the organizing intelligence of nature is internal, a natural force, life is still intelligently designed. Random mutation and natural selection may be the only known materialistic explanation, but where does it say everyone must be a materialist. Furthermore, theism is not the only alternative to materialism. Acknowledgement of the reality of volition and freewill are the main points of non-materialism. http://30145.myauthorsite.com/ (questions about materialism) No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
You should look at this thread. A long-time member here named Quetzal started a discussion about teleology (purpose) in nature.
Otherwise, I don't think this post was on topic here. ICANT is a great wordsmith (among the greatest of our day), and loves to mince and mingle semantics. Thus, any word that is written on a piece of paper somewhere in some context constitutes genuine evidence, even if it isn't attached to any data whatsoever. For instance, he has purported that:
ICANT writes: Darwin's book included his conclusions for the origin of life. If he had actually read the book, he would know that this "conclusion" does not follow from the data presented therein, and therefore, should not be touted as a conclusion, or, for that matter, even as a part of the theory of the book.
bertvan writes: If evolution is defined as “change over time” I haven’t heard many people dispute that. This, I think, is part of ICANT's ongoing point. Obviously, things change. However, it's the mechanism by which they change that defines the theory that is being used.
bertvan writes: My own view is that the ability to make intelligent, purposeful responses is an observable trait of all living systems. Even single cells are capable of some limited creative response to environmental stimuli. Such responses are heritable, epigenetically, as traits develop, and only become encoded into the genome if persistent over generations Maybe the IDists want people like you on their side, then. However, be careful with this, because phenotypic changes don't usually happen without genotypic changes happening first. Oh, wait, this is also off-topic. Start a thread, and I'd like to discuss it with you. Signed, Nobody Important (just Bluejay)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please stay on topic, which doesn't happen to be materialism. You can propose new topics over at [forum=-25]. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
quote: I don't believe this has been established. No one knows which happens first. Edited to add: I don't know whether or not IDist want me on their side. I do know I don't want to be on the side of the NeoDarwinists. Edited by bertvan, : No reason given. No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't believe this has been established. No one knows which happens first. Yes they do. You don't know, but that doesn't mean that no-one knows. Because you are not everyone. In particular, you are not a geneticist and you know nothing about genetics.
Edited to add: I don't know whether or not IDist want me on their side. I do know I don't want to be on the side of the NeoDarwinists. Perhaps you will change your mind if you ever learn anything about basic biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think the following is an accurate statement of the materialist position: Then you are wrong. It's quite a good statement of the evolutionist position, but it clearly has bugger-all to do with materialism, a topic that it never mentions.
Acknowledgement of the reality of volition and freewill are the main points of non-materialism. Oh, look, it appears that I'm a staunch non-materialist, since I believe passionately in the reality of free will. And yet I also believe that: "all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; . the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems." So what the heck do these "materialists" believe? If "materialism" is about admitting the facts of evolution, then I guess I'm a "materialist". If "materialism" is about denying free will, then I'm not a "materialist". Your call. Please come up with a single self-consistent definition of "materialist", and then I'll know whether or not I am one. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Um, by the definition of phenotypic and genotypic, and by the definition of modern genetic theory, genotypic changes must occur before phenotypic changes, because the genotype of an organism is what causes change in its phenotype.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bertvan Junior Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 29 From: Palm Springs California Joined: |
True, modern neoDarwinism assumes that change originates as accidents in the genome, that such accidents cause phenotypic change. A non-materialistic view would be that change originates in phenotypes. Then individual organisms may upgrade their genomes to reflect such change if persistent over multiple generations. Certainly no one has ever observed a complex biological function or organ originating as a series of genomic accidents. On the other hand, individual, living organisms can be readily observed achieving modest but purposeful adaptations in response to environmental challenges. Such adaptations are not immediately reflected in genomes - so far as we know. The one gene equals one trait concept is being abandoned, and it would be difficult to demonstrate which scenario actually takes place with our present understanding of the relation between genes and physical traits. However parallel evolution would seem to support the idea that similar organisms find similar solutions to similar environmental challenges. Not accidentally, but as an accumulation of purposeful responses.
I personally accept the scenario that appears most reasonable, in spite of what the establishment tells me I am supposed to believe. No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
bertvan writes: True, modern neoDarwinism assumes that change originates as accidents in the genome, that such accidents cause phenotypic change. A non-materialistic view would be that change originates in phenotypes. Then individual organisms may upgrade their genomes to reflect such change if persistent over multiple generations. It's off topic here, so briefly, both views you describe are equally materialistic. I think you've just started a topic about your faith, so perhaps I can explain there, without being O.T.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Quite a while back I planned retitling and moving this topic. Never did it.
This topic was originally intended very specifically to be the discussion of what the term "evolution" meant. As in, should the default be that it is "biological evolution". This original theme is long behind us. There is at least 1 "Proposed New Topic(s)" (PNT) being spun-off this topic. Closing it down. Will give 10 minutes for any in progress (albeit off-topic) messages to be posted. Adminnemooseus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024